Non-certified aircraft and known ice?

[BlueLight]

I live in NE Ohio which specializes in ice making in clouds and precip this time of year and well into the Spring.

The question I have is on the wisdom of allegedly (IFR rated) pilots of newer a/c such as a Cirrus taking off into forecast or reported ice conditions and figuring their "non-certified for known ice" systems have enough juice to get them on top and into the clear? I'm sure that isn't the norm with all but I get the impression from talk and reading mags that it must be happening.

I can see launching IFR into broken layers as long as I can see blue or else have an escape route or know where the warm air is. Unfortunately, overcast bases at 800 agl with tops at 7000-8000 seem to be the norm around here.

Even if a high performance turbo'd single engine with TKS weeping wings, hot prop (no windshield heat) could punch a hole through the potentially icey overcast won't ATC make an inquiry when forecast ice or reported ice was present and you file and launch into it?

The manufacturer's make clear the anti/deice systems are not certified and are to be only used for 'inadvertent' encounters. But it seems to me that if you are on the ground and you have an overcast with likely ice layer even a few thousand feet thick you can't legally go.

Or does it come to down to pilot judgement? Winter flight when possible is awesome but it seems a very rare day it would be legal to fly for some of us with high performance singles.

 

[ultrarunner]

But it seems to me that if you are on the ground and you have an overcast with likely ice layer even a few thousand feet thick you can't legally go.

In an airplane NOT certificated for flight into 'known-ice' you are correct...you could not depart.

No different than if you wanted to depart in a VFR-only airplane into IFR conditions.

 

[avbug]

The question I have is on the wisdom of allegedly (IFR rated) pilots of newer a/c such as a Cirrus taking off into forecast or reported ice conditions and figuring their "non-certified for known ice" systems have enough juice to get them on top and into the clear?

Of course, departing single engine in a light piston airplane into IMC with the only redundancy and backup a parachute, is okay...it's just the idea of the ice that bothers you?

Ice is bad, known or not. Flying in ice isn't good, approved, or not. Flying a single engine airplane in ice isn't good, approved, known, whatever.

Flying single engine piston driven airplanes at night over terrain, water, or hostile ground, or flying them in instrument conditions (especially with one instrument power source, one powerplant, one electrical source, no backup instruments, etc) is foolish to begin with...forget the ice.

Then again, almost every deployment of the parachute (CAPS) in the cirrus to date has been a foolish pilot who flew far beyond his means, and used the parachute as a panic button. You'll probably find that the pilots you see taking off into the ice are comfortable engaging in their own brand of foolishness because they think that parachute is there to save them from themselves.

It's worth noting that many, if not the majority, of the parachute deployments in the cirrus aircraft has been failures. Something the owners and operators might just want to consider before they base blind faith on a folded canopy and light rocket motor...

--Latest fatal in the cirrus was in Lancaster, CA. This one recent, an engine failure in the traffic pattern was handled by attempting to deploy the parachute...in the middle of wide, open, Antelope Valley...big and wide enough to base Edwards AFB and land the Space Shuttle, with a nice long runway at WJF field...and the soloution to an engine failure was deploying the parachute. I believe everybody on board died.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Of course, departing single engine in a light piston airplane into IMC with the only redundancy and backup a parachute, is okay...it's just the idea of the ice that bothers you?

Flying single engine piston driven airplanes at night over terrain, water, or hostile ground, or flying them in instrument conditions (especially with one instrument power source, one powerplant, one electrical source, no backup instruments, etc) is foolish to begin with...forget the ice.

It seems to me that the original question revolves around dispatching an airplane into conditions that it's not certificated for...I could fly my Maule in instrument conditions (needle, ball, and airspeed, VFR GPS) just fine...I doubt that anybody would be able to tell the difference. I think that would be more of an "equivalent level of foolishness" to taking a non-icing-certified airplane into icing conditions just because it has TKS and a hot prop than the examples you provided.

Fly safe!

David

 

[avbug]

I don't get your point. Go fly your maule into IMC, you're engaging in stupid behavior. Go fly the Cirrus in IMC, you're engaging in stupid behavior. Go fly the cirrus into ice, or your maule for that matter, you're engaging in stupid behavior.

If one wants to pick out degrees of stupidity, so be it, but stupidity is stupidity, and not far flung from foolishness.

You can cite a million examples of stupid behavior, if you wish. When the curtain comes down, one thing still remains; it's all stupidity, and not a single such act should be undertaken when not necessary and without additional means by which to accomplish the act.

Fly your maule in IMC...fine. Just ensure you have backup electrical and pneumatics, anti-ice, certification, and such redundancy that you can handle the engine failure when it happens (never a matter of if, but when). Single engine piston IMC without adequate redundancy is foolishness. Period. Ice, or no ice.

You feel that you can go fly without difficulty on needle, ball, and airspeed. A lot of folks do. On a dead calm day, perhaps you could...but be honest...how much have you really done? Throw in some real world turbulence and upsets, and weather, and your cavalier "...I could fly my Maule in instrument conditions (needle, ball, and airspeed, VFR GPS) just fine...I doubt that anybody would be able to tell the difference" lacks the genuine bravado it suggests. That's really aside from the point of the thread.

One, without approved de-ice and anti-ice, and a type certification or supplemental type certification for approval to operate in known ice, then an aircraft many not operate in known ice conditions. Known ice includes forecast ice, reported ice, and conditions known to be conducive to the formation of ice.

Two, w(h)eather the aircraft identified as the subject material of the thread are approved for flight into known ice or not, they have no business being there, for all of the reasons heretofore named.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I don't get your point. Go fly the Cirrus in IMC, you're engaging in stupid behavior.

Why is simply flying the Cirrus in IMC "engaging in stupid behavior"?

 

[avbug]

You DID read the thread thus far, right??

READ!

 

[MauleSkinner]

You DID read the thread thus far, right??

READ!

Yes, i did...and you're the only one who talks about flight in IMC regardless of other conditions being stupid, and you don't explain why.

ANSWER!

 

[NYCPilot]

In some aircraft, the only difference between certified and not certified for known icing conditions is the certificate itself. FAA approval.

 

[avbug]

In some aircraft, the only difference between certified and not certified for known icing conditions is the certificate itself. FAA approval.

Aaah...yeah. That's a pretty big difference. Legal vs. not legal.

Airworthy means two things: legal, and safe. If neither are met, the aircraft is not airworthy for that condition, and if type approval or supplemental type approval for operation into know ice hasn't been received, the aircraft isn't airworthy for operation in those conditions...therefore, it may not operate in those conditions. Period.

Yes, i did...and you're the only one who talks about flight in IMC regardless of other conditions being stupid, and you don't explain why.

ANSWER!

Apparently you just don't read very well. Point taken.

You might have missed...

Fly your maule in IMC...fine. Just ensure you have backup electrical and pneumatics, anti-ice, certification, and such redundancy that you can handle the engine failure when it happens (never a matter of if, but when). Single engine piston IMC without adequate redundancy is foolishness. Period. Ice, or no ice.

Flying single engine piston driven airplanes at night over terrain, water, or hostile ground, or flying them in instrument conditions (especially with one instrument power source, one powerplant, one electrical source, no backup instruments, etc) is foolish to begin with...forget the ice.

When your one alternator fails, what do you do? When your one vacum source fails, what do you do? When your one attitude indicator goes TI, what do you do? Go back to flying needle, ball, and airspeed in your Maule? That's the plan? What about in the Cirrus? When faced with ice, performance decreasing conditions, an engine failure, embedded weather, what do you do? Systems redundancy is a bigger issue with single engine piston powered light aircraft than most other aircraft. Particularly with respect to the one powerplant which will eventually fail (again, not if, but when).

Single engine IMC is done all the time, but then again, so is running the bulls at Pamplona. Doesn't make it smart.

 

[MauleSkinner]

When your one alternator fails, what do you do? When your one vacum source fails, what do you do? When your one attitude indicator goes TI, what do you do? Go back to flying needle, ball, and airspeed in your Maule? That's the plan? What about in the Cirrus? When faced with ice, performance decreasing conditions, an engine failure, embedded weather, what do you do? Systems redundancy is a bigger issue with single engine piston powered light aircraft than most other aircraft. Particularly with respect to the one powerplant which will eventually fail (again, not if, but when).

Single engine IMC is done all the time, but then again, so is running the bulls at Pamplona. Doesn't make it smart.

It appears that you and I read something you wrote differently...I read

Flying single engine piston driven airplanes ... or flying them in instrument conditions (especially with one instrument power source, one powerplant, one electrical source, no backup instruments, etc) is foolish to begin with...forget the ice.

as "flying single-engine piston driven airplanes in instrument conditions is foolish." The parenthetical information, to me, doesn't modify the original statement, it just adds "an additional level of foolishness".

Single engine piston IMC without adequate redundancy is foolishness. Period.

I may be wrong, but my understanding of the Cirrus is that it has some kind of back up electrical source (which includes instrument power) and backup instruments. Granted, the lack of redundancy in powerplant is still an issue in the Cirrus, but that lack of redundancy exists whether VFR, IFR, day, night, whatever. I'm not reading wht you said as "single-engine airplanes are dangerous, period.", but limited to IMC or terrain issues.

Apparently your intent was something different.

David

 

[avbug]

Single engine airplanes at night, over the mountains, in weather, over the water...whatever. Yes, it is dangerous. You read that right.

Back up the instruments, there's one worry...but then there's that pesky single engine thing.

I understand the drive, and the reasons. I fly a single engine airplane into the mountains in unfavorable condtitions, low visibility, etc. All hazards, and hazards become risks when put in play. I eliminate those risks by refusing to do it at night, and ensuring that I have a disposable load, always entering a canyon and crossing a ridge such that I have an out, always starting high and ending low when I have to get close to rocks and trees, and refusing to go into instrument conditions (even though the aircraft is equipped) with the airplane. If I go cross country, I keep landing sites beneath me. I stay in radio contact. I don't take risks, I eliminate them.

The mentality with the cirrus is that risks can be taken because there's a parachute panic button to bail the user out.

Piston engines fail. Again, not a matter of if they will fail, but when. Any mentality less than this when operating a piston engine, or any aircraft engine, is flawed, and at risk. Pilots who don't think it will, merely lack the experience. Pilots who haven't experienced engine failures and seriously contemplated the consequences may be goaded into flying single engine IMC. Justification, they say, is the narcotic of the soul, and pilots will justifying just about anything. It's all in the excuse.

Gotta get there. Single engine at night over the mountains. It will fail one day, just not this trip. Just have a high ceiling; when the engine fails and we're IMC, we'll just descend out of the cloud without power and find a suitable landing site. Hopefully not at the same time we encounter a tall tower, mountain, building, or other obstacle beneath the cloud. Then again, it probably won't fail. It's the only aircraft available...it will probably fail on someone else, not me. Let's go. More advanced aircraft are too expensive. Lindbergh did it. Doolittle did it. I can do it. It can't happen to me.

Of course, the list is endless. Most often, I hear some trip about "calculated risks," or the more popular garbage "risk management." It's a calculated risk, therefore it's okay. Calculated exactly how? Calculated by guessing that because one hasn't experienced an engine failure in a single engine airplane while IMC thus far, it won't happen? Or merely that the statistics say it's unlikely? Exactly how? Isn't that a whole lot like flight planning by saying "we'll probably arrive with enough fuel," or "the weather will probably come up above minimums when we get there?" You bet it is.

Am I saying flying single engine piston equipment is unwise in IMC? YES, I am.

I'd hate to be ambiguous about that.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Am I saying flying single engine piston equipment is unwise in IMC? YES, I am.

I'd hate to be ambiguous about that.

All of the previous stuff that I deleted from this quote, I agree wtih 100%. I have not questioned that in this thread.

My question was related to the portion above, and the portions isolated in my previous post. The way I read it, you were saying that flying a single-engine airplane with redundant systems (other than the engine) is unsafe in daytime, in a thin layer of warm clouds, maybe 500 feet thick, 5000 feet above flat, hospitable terrain. This operation, to me, poses a negligible increase in foolishness over the same flight in clear air.

Since all of your replies have added the other hazards back in, I'm assuming that your intent was limited to those additional hazards.

David

 

[Photoflight]

Dont the statistics say that people are more likely to crash single engine airplanes due to engine failure...however, people are more likely to die in a twin engine airplane if an engine fails.

To me it sounds like multi engine aircraft are dangerous to fly. I vote no more multi engine aircraft.

If all airplanes were triple redundent with climb rates 2000FPM minimum climb rates and we could operate them all at no more than 1/2 gross weight life would be peachy. In fact if we could stay out of clouds only fly over kansas and do it all from the safety of our easy chair life would be peachy.

Does flying a single engine aircraft in IMC mean its more dangerous than a light twin? No..just different. OH WAIT!!!!!

Don't most light aircraft accidents happen on clear and a million days. From now on IFR ONLY preferably IMC. VFR flying is too dangerous. GA in general is a huge liability.

 

[avbug]

You can dress it up any way you like. Clear air, fine. So add a little puffy fair wx cumulus clous, and that's okay. If that's okay, how about a thin layer? If that's okay how about a thicker layer? If that's okay how about flight above the thin or thick layer? Justify it by making it flat beneath, and then having a high ceiling...that way you can still pick a forced landing site when descending without power.

Seeing as flight in the thicker layer is fine, how about just flat out flying IMC everywhere? Justify it by degrees, but it's still justification.

As a younger pilot I took occasion to find myself in a single engine airplane in IMC, once upon a time. I experienced an engine failure, and descending from the cloud base put me over a gravel strip upon which I landed, without power.

There were engine failures before, and I've had them since...but of all, that one stands out as quite possibly one of the dumbest learning experiences into which I could have placed myself, and from which I am quite fortunate to have survived.

I've seen a lot of ways to justify doing something in an aircraft, and I'm guilty of many of them myself in times past...for that very reason I preach long and hard against the pratice, and I do it based on personal experience. I'd surely hate for someone to try to re-learn that lesson and not be nearly as fortunate.

 

[Guitar rocker]

Yah, you sure can fly a non certified aircraft into known or forecast icing....as in, it's your call. I wouldnt say it's legal, but heres a few other points to consider....

The problem with looking into the sky and seeing a little glimpse of blue through the clouds and assuming that you will be cleared right on through and into the clear is this..........if after takeoff, ATC sticks you right in the tops and cant get you higher or lower, there you are stuck in the ice. Surely you will have to speak up and if the controller is forced to move someone else so as to accomodate you or if worse comes to worse and you have to declare an emergency, then ATC might be giving you a number to call. Then the tapes are rolling.

I had a friend that was flying an approach in a C310 (this one not certified for known icing) and he had to descend through a relatively thin layer of clouds to his destination airport where icing was forecast. He landed with a small amount of ice but without incident. Except that the FAA was there that morning doing ramp checks and he got a violation.

Overall, it's not worth the risk, the lawyers fees, or the thought of suspension or revocation of your liscense to fly in forecast or known icing in an aircraft that isnt certified for icing. Afterall, just when you think that you have gotten away with it, I guess you had better see who may be roaming around the airport with a his/her 110A badge and watching.

 

[MauleSkinner]

You can dress it up any way you like. Clear air, fine. So add a little puffy fair wx cumulus clous, and that's okay. If that's okay, how about a thin layer? If that's okay how about a thicker layer? If that's okay how about flight above the thin or thick layer? Justify it by making it flat beneath, and then having a high ceiling...that way you can still pick a forced landing site when descending without power.

Seeing as flight in the thicker layer is fine, how about just flat out flying IMC everywhere? Justify it by degrees, but it's still justification.

As a younger pilot I took occasion to find myself in a single engine airplane in IMC, once upon a time. I experienced an engine failure, and descending from the cloud base put me over a gravel strip upon which I landed, without power.

There were engine failures before, and I've had them since...but of all, that one stands out as quite possibly one of the dumbest learning experiences into which I could have placed myself, and from which I am quite fortunate to have survived.

I've seen a lot of ways to justify doing something in an aircraft, and I'm guilty of many of them myself in times past...for that very reason I preach long and hard against the pratice, and I do it based on personal experience. I'd surely hate for someone to try to re-learn that lesson and not be nearly as fortunate.

So...that would be a "no".

 

[mustangpilot]

Wow avbug needs to cool their jets a bit. So far I think you have said about one thing that is factual,,, flight into known icing (forecast, or reported) is illegal in a non-approved airplane. I have seen pilots do it, and come back fine. I have seen pilots do it and never return. Is this stupid and illegal,, absolutely.
Now when you start getting all bent out of shape about flying a single engine IMC starts making me wonder. I have flown skyhawk- bonaza-cherokee- 206ect,, the list goes on,, into imc and I am still here to talk about it. Did I do my homework on the weather,,, and made sure I gave myself a buffer and yes I am still here. I even had failures while hard IMC,,,, thats what the friendly instructor was for when he gave you all that partial panel training during instrument training. there is nothing that says you have to go up on a day thats 200 and 1/2,, but can't remember how many students I have taken up on great IMC days and not had a problem because we were smart about it. Awos, Atis,Hiwas,FSS are all there during flight for a reason.
I will admit it is dangerous flying a single engine into IMC but flying can be a little exciting sometimes. You put a baby twin in the same weather and throw in a little problems and you make for a worse situation than in the single, especially with a pilot thats out of proficiency.
you have all the ratings and have flown all the airplanes out there huh? (insert sarcasim)

 

[Say Again Over]

I drive a YZFR6 to work, now that IS dangerous.:nuts:

 

[Cat Driver]

We all form our own safety and or comfort limits when it comes to what, when or where we fly.

Mine are that I do not fly single engine aircraft at night x/country, over water beyond gliding distance of land or IFR in IMC.

Also I do not fly single pilot IFR..

Now here is my question, does all the above make me an unskilled or poor decision making pilot?